In Vienna, another round of talks has ended on Monday (August 8) as part of the efforts to bring the US and Iran back to the nuclear deal. At the end of the discussions, the European coordinator announced that a text of the agreement has been formulated, including the steps the US and Iran are expected to take in order to return to the agreement and the timetable for their implementation. It seems the US administration, even if it has not yet officially related to the announcement, has accepted the text. Iran, for its part, made it clear it does not consider this version to be a final one that can’t be negotiated further.
After giving up their demand to remove the Revolutionary Guards from the US State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO), the Iranians continue to insist that before signing the agreement, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will close the remaining open questions on Iran, particularly the IAEA demand to receive explanations for the materials and activities that were revealed on four sites that were not declared by Iran. The prevalent suspicion is that Iran violated the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In Iran's view, without a solution to the issue it could soon find itself in a crisis with the IAEA again, which could lead to the referral of the issue to the Security Council and even to the imposition of additional sanctions. On the other hand, from the West's point of view, the return to the agreement should not be linked to the continuation of negotiations between Iran and the IAEA, whose results depend on Iran's willingness to provide the IAEA with satisfactory answers.
Another issue that is not yet clear if it is satisfactorily resolved from Iran's point of view is the issue of the guarantees that Tehran demands in the event of a future American withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. A possible solution in this context is the acceptance of technical and non-political guarantees (for example, guaranteeing the ability of Western companies, which would sign deals with Iran, to continue implementing them even in case of a future American withdrawal from the agreement).
In conclusion, it seems that both parties arrived in Vienna with the intention of moving forward in the process, even though it is not yet possible to determine whether the Iranian leadership has made a final decision regarding its willingness to return to the nuclear deal at this time. As far as the West is concerned, the text that was reached meets the requirements. At this stage, it appears that Iran is required to make a political decision, which requires the approval of the Supreme National Security Council and the leader of Iran, whether to agree to return to the deal before agreements have been reached with the IAEA regarding the open questions. Although the possibility of further discussions regarding the mechanism that will enable the settlement between Iran and the IAEA cannot be ruled out, Iran's continued insistence on closing the open questions before returning to the agreement could lead to the final collapse of the deal.
In Vienna, another round of talks has ended on Monday (August 8) as part of the efforts to bring the US and Iran back to the nuclear deal. At the end of the discussions, the European coordinator announced that a text of the agreement has been formulated, including the steps the US and Iran are expected to take in order to return to the agreement and the timetable for their implementation. It seems the US administration, even if it has not yet officially related to the announcement, has accepted the text. Iran, for its part, made it clear it does not consider this version to be a final one that can’t be negotiated further.
After giving up their demand to remove the Revolutionary Guards from the US State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO), the Iranians continue to insist that before signing the agreement, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will close the remaining open questions on Iran, particularly the IAEA demand to receive explanations for the materials and activities that were revealed on four sites that were not declared by Iran. The prevalent suspicion is that Iran violated the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In Iran's view, without a solution to the issue it could soon find itself in a crisis with the IAEA again, which could lead to the referral of the issue to the Security Council and even to the imposition of additional sanctions. On the other hand, from the West's point of view, the return to the agreement should not be linked to the continuation of negotiations between Iran and the IAEA, whose results depend on Iran's willingness to provide the IAEA with satisfactory answers.
Another issue that is not yet clear if it is satisfactorily resolved from Iran's point of view is the issue of the guarantees that Tehran demands in the event of a future American withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. A possible solution in this context is the acceptance of technical and non-political guarantees (for example, guaranteeing the ability of Western companies, which would sign deals with Iran, to continue implementing them even in case of a future American withdrawal from the agreement).
In conclusion, it seems that both parties arrived in Vienna with the intention of moving forward in the process, even though it is not yet possible to determine whether the Iranian leadership has made a final decision regarding its willingness to return to the nuclear deal at this time. As far as the West is concerned, the text that was reached meets the requirements. At this stage, it appears that Iran is required to make a political decision, which requires the approval of the Supreme National Security Council and the leader of Iran, whether to agree to return to the deal before agreements have been reached with the IAEA regarding the open questions. Although the possibility of further discussions regarding the mechanism that will enable the settlement between Iran and the IAEA cannot be ruled out, Iran's continued insistence on closing the open questions before returning to the agreement could lead to the final collapse of the deal.